If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." Albert Einstein

talent and intelligence are for the most part products of an environment. if someone lives in an environment conducive towards formal education and with parents highly support of educational attainment then they are much more likely to become 'intelligent and talented'.

well rayne because people in the middle class and above have more educated parents, largely because their parents had better education parents and etc back several generations. their parents will actively push them to value formal education and to get good grades etc for its own sake and this will affect their entire lives because a cultural value has been established -- a cultural value which happens to be strongly linked to economic gains. this does not happen for lower-income children because their parents are not as well educated and do not value the system of formal education itself as much and will not push their children to succeed in that system as much because it is foreign to them(of course this is a generalization, but that is because it HOLDS TRUE GENERALLY). this is due to several reasons including a high level of attainment in the formal education system not having been set as a defined cultural value, and the fact that people with very pressing real life concerns and pressures will find it more difficult to acclimate to the largely abstract world of academics.

FOR THE MOST PART the success or lack thereof of someone in a primary and secondary educational system will be established from a very early age due to how cultural values are enforced in their primary discourse(home life). for the most part if someone has not established a cultural connection to the education system by their late childhood they will not suddenly create one out of thin air. and since economic gains are tied very strongly to educational attainment, a person's future economic gains are thus directly linked to what kind of cultural values were established from their early childhood.

of course there are exceptions but they are just that: exceptions.

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

god these arent the 1800s where people used to send pre-pubescen kids to do manual labour in order to support their family. its a well-documented fact that even among the lower sections of the society people are more than willing to give their children an education considering how cheap education has become and because a well-educated son or daughter can earn several times more than their parents when they land a job and the welfare of the parent would be settled. the exceptions to this are INCREDIBLY poor sections of society ie the people who are poverty stricken and people like uncultured rednecks so id say unless you lived on a tiny farm in montana or your parents have enough money to put food on your plate then it is highly likely that you would get at least a primary school education.

and once youre in school as long as you show GENUINE intellect or talent then getting into a school or university that would provide even greater impetus is not only possible, it is easy. id take an educated guess and say that at least half of the population of any notable arts school in america consists of people who got in through scholarships. america in general has a much better condition in regards to education of its poorer population than most other nations of the world. you yourself stated that you couldve easily gotten into a top university if you had shown interest in school and considering that you hold yourself as a benchmark test for poorness then that should give you an idea of the point that im trying to make. there are exceptions to this but there will be exceptions to anything. a parents' refusal to let his or her kid to cultivate their god given talents isnt going to change under a communist economy.

plus you have this bizarre notion that the richer people are the more likely they are to become artistically or intellectually renown; that simply isnt true. do you really think people who have made their fortunes off a successful business would let their kids pursue any other career path than take over the company? kids from the upper sections of society who take up an artistic venture are frowned upon either because of social stigma or simply because they wouldnt make as much money as they would otherwise. id go so far as to say that relatively poorer people are more likely to concede to their children becoming painters or ballet dancers or whatever because they have less to lose.

god these arent the 1800s where people used to send pre-pubescen kids to do manual labour in order to support their family. its a well-documented fact that even among the lower sections of the society people are more than willing to give their children an education considering how cheap education has become and because a well-educated son or daughter can earn several times more than their parents when they land a job and the welfare of the parent would be settled. the exceptions to this are INCREDIBLY poor sections of society ie the people who are poverty stricken and people like uncultured rednecks so id say unless you lived on a tiny farm in montana or your parents have enough money to put food on your plate then it is highly likely that you would get at least a primary school education.

and once youre in school as long as you show GENUINE intellect or talent then getting into a school or university that would provide even greater impetus is not only possible, it is easy. id take an educated guess and say that at least half of the population of any notable arts school in america consists of people who got in through scholarships. america in general has a much better condition in regards to education of its poorer population than most other nations of the world. you yourself stated that you couldve easily gotten into a top university if you had shown interest in school and considering that you hold yourself as a benchmark test for poorness then that should give you an idea of the point that im trying to make. there are exceptions to this but there will be exceptions to anything. a parents' refusal to let his or her kid to cultivate their god given talents isnt going to change under a communist economy.

plus you have this bizarre notion that the richer people are the more likely they are to become artistically or intellectually renown; that simply isnt true. do you really think people who have made their fortunes off a successful business would let their kids pursue any other career path than take over the company? kids from the upper sections of society who take up an artistic venture are frowned upon either because of social stigma or simply because they wouldnt make as much money as they would otherwise. id go so far as to say that relatively poorer people are more likely to concede to their children becoming painters or ballet dancers or whatever because they have less to lose.

god these arent the 1800s where people used to send pre-pubescen kids to do manual labour in order to support their family. its a well-documented fact that even among the lower sections of the society people are more than willing to give their children an education considering how cheap education has become and because a well-educated son or daughter can earn several times more than their parents when they land a job and the welfare of the parent would be settled. the exceptions to this are INCREDIBLY poor sections of society ie the people who are poverty stricken and people like uncultured rednecks so id say unless you lived on a tiny farm in montana or your parents have enough money to put food on your plate then it is highly likely that you would get at least a primary school education.

and once youre in school as long as you show GENUINE intellect or talent then getting into a school or university that would provide even greater impetus is not only possible, it is easy. id take an educated guess and say that at least half of the population of any notable arts school in america consists of people who got in through scholarships. america in general has a much better condition in regards to education of its poorer population than most other nations of the world. you yourself stated that you couldve easily gotten into a top university if you had shown interest in school and considering that you hold yourself as a benchmark test for poorness then that should give you an idea of the point that im trying to make. there are exceptions to this but there will be exceptions to anything. a parents' refusal to let his or her kid to cultivate their god given talents isnt going to change under a communist economy.

plus you have this bizarre notion that the richer people are the more likely they are to become artistically or intellectually renown; that simply isnt true. do you really think people who have made their fortunes off a successful business would let their kids pursue any other career path than take over the company? kids from the upper sections of society who take up an artistic venture are frowned upon either because of social stigma or simply because they wouldnt make as much money as they would otherwise. id go so far as to say that relatively poorer people are more likely to concede to their children becoming painters or ballet dancers or whatever because they have less to lose.

The only reason America has a good track record of poor people in university is because the majority of its population is poor, and the rich people are rich enough to either throw away their money to random scholarships or have the government tax it out of them and then provide a public scholarship.

both of those propositions are far from true solly! the majority of the us population is not poor and the us does not have a great track record of poor people in universities.

let us look at harvard for example: http://www.fas.harvard.edu/home/news...03302009.shtml
only 25% of admitted students qualify for financial aid based on family incomes under 80k per year. so 75% of students at harvard are from families making above 80k a year, which is an astronomical sum. it would be a safe bet to assume that many of those 25% still come from families in the 60-80k range, which is still a VERY high income. same numbers would almost certainly hold true for most/all other highly prestigious schools.

yes, avenues DO exist for a poor person to achieve an elite level of educational attainment and thus be set for a future of high economic gains. but the point is hardly any of them get there because culture is more important and they have not been geared for that culture from an early age. so yes people who are at the 'top' of society, lets say 99.999% of the time, and there because they were born to rich parents. this is more true in the us than any other nation, and the us is the most capitalistic nation in the world. which dispels the idea of capitalism as a system where people get ahead through intrinsic intelligence and work ethic of their own.

ps ill respond to raynes posts later

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

god these arent the 1800s where people used to send pre-pubescen kids to do manual labour in order to support their family. its a well-documented fact that even among the lower sections of the society people are more than willing to give their children an education considering how cheap education has become and because a well-educated son or daughter can earn several times more than their parents when they land a job and the welfare of the parent would be settled. the exceptions to this are INCREDIBLY poor sections of society ie the people who are poverty stricken and people like uncultured rednecks so id say unless you lived on a tiny farm in montana or your parents have enough money to put food on your plate then it is highly likely that you would get at least a primary school education.

yes, almost every single person in the us is going to get a primary and secondary education. they are going to be there, and most likely they will do at least mediocre. thats not the issue. the issue is that people will almost certainly not reach the level of educational attainment to get to 'the top' if they are not from a family comfortably middle class or above.

the institution of school is a discourse all its own. children are thrust into it from a very young age, and therefore their attitude towards it will likely be shaped far before, say, their teenage years. the type of coursework and grades one has to have to get into a top university requires a great deal of time and dedication to that institution, and it requires that the student has a strong cultural value for it. their values for this institution will OBVIOUSLY be shaped by their parents -- and of course they will be more likely to value education highly if their parents are well education. if their parents are well educated it is likely that they are middle class or above.

it is in no way obvious for a child in grade school that he should put a great deal of value into this institution unless the values are actively instilled in him. if he has parents below middle class it is likely they are not well educated, and that the world of academics in general is foreign to them. certainly a majority of lower-income parents still tell their child that school is important, go to school, dont fail classes etc, but it is far less likely that they will push their child to get straight A's and set them down the course to get into higher classes later down the road, which is what upper-income parents do to their children which instills in them a cultural value for the institution of schooling which stays with them all their lives.

i think you are missing the point in how important cultural values and primary discourse are for how well students do in school, and how sharp the divide in those values there is between those middle class and above and those below.

you yourself stated that you couldve easily gotten into a top university if you had shown interest in school and considering that you hold yourself as a benchmark test for poorness then that should give you an idea of the point that im trying to make.

im not exactly the general case

there are exceptions to this but there will be exceptions to anything. a parents' refusal to let his or her kid to cultivate their god given talents isnt going to change under a communist economy.

i would have to disagree with this because under a 'more socialist' economic system there would be more social programs which people could take advantage of to become middle class. in this case the cultural values in regards to formal education would still be an issue but at least in this case there would not be poverty-associated issues to actively act against it.

plus you have this bizarre notion that the richer people are the more likely they are to become artistically or intellectually renown; that simply isnt true. do you really think people who have made their fortunes off a successful business would let their kids pursue any other career path than take over the company? kids from the upper sections of society who take up an artistic venture are frowned upon either because of social stigma or simply because they wouldnt make as much money as they would otherwise. id go so far as to say that relatively poorer people are more likely to concede to their children becoming painters or ballet dancers or whatever because they have less to lose.

im not sure where this came into the discussion

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.

i think you are missing the point in how important cultural values and primary discourse are for how well students do in school, and how sharp the divide in those values there is between those middle class and above and those below.

no, i get that. but the point im trying to make is that you cannot argue against any poorer class student not having the opportunity to get to a reputed university because it is an extremely possible scenario. what remains to be the issue is whether the students would actually put in the effort, or whether their parents would force them to put in the effort, and it is an issue that isnt necessarily solved with the enforcement of communist principles. you agree with me:

i would have to disagree with this because under a 'more socialist' economic system there would be more social programs which people could take advantage of to become middle class. in this case the cultural values in regards to formal education would still be an issue but at least in this case there would not be poverty-associated issues to actively act against it.

but poverty isnt really the problem now is it. even with a slightly higher income you wouldnt expect lower class families to get their kids into top level institutions unless, like you said, they instill the important of education to their children and push them to the best of their ability. the circulation of such ideals is a snowball effect and without any sort of stimulus it wont be automatically implanted into the lower sections of society. the mindset of people is not going to change with slightly more money and it isnt like a person is going to magically receive a better education if their or their parents' wage gets bumped from 10 dollars an hour to 30 dollars an hour. your argument is that a communist economy would help poor people achieve a high level of education but in your own scenario that isnt the case.

im not sure where this came into the discussion

you seem to think that the level of cultivated 'talent' and 'intelligence' in a section of society is in direct proportion to the economic level of its people. it isnt like the richest families in the world churn out artists, scientists and similar intellectuals more than the lower classes do.

you do realise that I'm arguing a specific case here, not well paying jobs in general but ventures that require a high amount of talent and intellect. being a doctor isn't all that demanding of mental capacity in retrospect.

you seem to think that the level of cultivated 'talent' and 'intelligence' in a section of society is in direct proportion to the economic level of its people. it isnt like the richest families in the world churn out artists, scientists and similar intellectuals more than the lower classes do.

name me a few scientists, mathematicians or scholars of significant renown who came from poor families

"I'll go," said Chagataev. "But what will I do there? Build socialism?"
"What else?" said the secretary.